Dear Jennifer.
Please find below a link which will take you directly to the monthly newsletter (ca. 1.8 MB) with meteorological information updated to February 2012:
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_February_2012.pdf
All temperatures in this newsletter are shown in degrees Celsius.
Previous issues (since March 2009) of the newsletter, diagrams and additional material are available on http://www.climate4you.com/
All the best,
Ole Humlum
Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography
University of Oslo, Norway
you don't want to reply coz you're intellectually lazy.
Pity that Antarctica is net losing mass eh? ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/ggfc/papers/ngeo694.pdf
Most expensive in the world ? maybe not http://eepublishers.co.za/images/upload/Energize_2011_/05_vco_sa-electricity.pdf
You say something with grammatical meaning, but otherwise senseless:
"Arctic sea ice is melting"
Then you pile verbiage and figures and acronyms around that completely senseless statement, hoping it will acquire sense by mysterious osmosis.
That's how it's done, in the Age of Spin, the Age of GetUp.
I cant be bothered to be honest to reply, we always go around in circles and you generally build straw men to knock down. I take it you disagree with all/ most of OLE's data do you? move along nothing to see here.....post modernists at their best.
Its you and your mob that say co2 leads temp....clearly it does not, by all means then argue for why it doesnt...but why say it does when it doesnt over the geological time period!! seriously get a grip man
where is your rebuttal of seans post? he has made a big effort to show \how foolish you are ...go and look......
we now have the most expensive electricity in the world despite having access to the cheapest energy on earth.........why? why is it moral and good to lower all our living standards when you know full well without new technology nothing we do matters.
Well you didn't read my ice rebuttal did you (or think about for more than1 second)
PETM isn't a trick - ice cores are NOT a model for what's now occurring. It's a stupid analogy.
Toby - why wouldn't CO2 lag temp rise in the ice cores - are you that dense? What's going to happen - do you think a CO2 molecule is going to wake up one Sunday and start producing heat. In ice age cycles orbital variation varies the solar insolation which wakes up the biosphere and the oceans outgas CO2 - so what? that would have to be the most stupid sceptic argument ever used. Means you don't think about anything.
100m sea levels rises - err nope - IPCC now here near that sceptic fabrication
Himalayas might be cruisin but the bulk of the world's glaciers aren't for heaven sakes. http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm a duh !
Talk about seeing a single tree in the forest.
and pity trend is now back to statistical significance - as if you even understand what that means given all significance levels are arbitrary anyway http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html you don't even know what you're saying
Luke sean has done a pretty good job of destroying you here in relation to ice.... https://climatelab.com.au/2012/03/abc-journalist-wendy-carlisle-hatchet-job-exposed/?cp=2#comment-501264
i thought you or bazza might try the old petm and now trick...but that is 2 possibilities whilst throughout the rest of teh known record co2 clearly lags temp increase......does anybody dispute that?...and as for now how come we have seen so little warming in well over a decade despite co2 rising?...you keep ignoring this....how convenient, better to ignore inconvenient truths.........
Seriously wake up! not sceptical even a bit then you are a zealot or a fool...i dont think you are a fool...but maybe i need to change my mind?
i dont place much credence in global temps but considering we are now back at 1980 levels and have not seen statistically significant warming for a long time the co2 doesnt seem to be such a dominant forcing after all does it.....
as for define C, how much how soon....well considering teh scare stories pushed by your mob about no ice, 100m sea lvls ( yes some of your mob have pushed this...and even the 90cm rise is most unlikely dont you think!!?), antarctica temp to rise the most and nearly every other scare story thrown at us...ie himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, no more rain to fill our dams etc etc I think you should be \VERY EMBARRASSED and really should learn to eat some humble pie and acknowledge if you arent sceptical you should be.
"on geological time scales it is quite clear that co2 does not lead temp change but lags it" - err nope !
does now and did in the PETM
Temps are increasing - unless you're into selective stats
Arctic sea ice is melting
Antarctic sea ice is both melting spectacularly and freezing depending on which side of the continent you look
sea level rise doesn't have to "accelerate"
cooler Sun and PDO shift will take the top off
any individual GCM realisation does not have monotonic increases
in fact you'd want to be sure Toby that it wasn't still on !!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_earth_still_warming.html
"supposed global temp in feb being back below 1980 levels?….that co2 is not storing much heat is it!!" AND that sort of comment is nothing short of TOTALLY stupid - good grief
and more framing - just slipping that "C" onto AGW. Turn your back and they're at it again.
Define "C" - how much - how soon ? Any trends in drought perhaps? PDSI? hmmmm http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf
Bazza, wouldnt you expect more high temperatures if the world had warmed up?
on geological time scales it is quite clear that co2 does not lead temp change but lags it. I am not aware that this is ever disputed except by Al Gore?
if you look at the warming since the turn of last century there are as many periods when temp declined despite co2 increasing as there were where it increased.
It is also worth considering that if co2 is such a dominant forcing, the period needed to show the link should be relatively small.
We have had no real warming since 1998 and yet co2 has increased considerably......surely to a rational person this gives at least some doubt?..infact if we consider the pintabo eruption that cooled temp in teh early 90's we can really assume no real warming for nearly 2 decades.
So what were you saying?........not even a litle doubtful about your faith in the paradigm of CAGW?...if not you really should be because there is so much evidence now that raises doubt that only a fool or a zealot could be anything but a little sceptical....surely?( ocean temp not rising, sea level rise not accelerating, no increase in temps, no hot spot, ice has not dissappeared and infact is increasing in the south etc etc etc )
And what do you say to the supposed global temp in feb being back below 1980 levels?....that co2 is not storing much heat is it!!?
Cool link Luke on theddecadal trend in USA temperature records. Now about twice as many record highs as lows. I did what Ole Humlum could do, if he wanted to expand and balance his repertoire and have a projection consistent with the physics– extrapolated the trend to 2100 using a polynomial degree 2. The answer is by 2100, high temp records will be outrunning lows by 20 to 1. ( R2=0.97). The estimate is probably conservative as in general, it is harder to break records, the longer the period of record if there is no trend or discontinuity, (for example topically, if you ditched your textile bathers for the hi tech poly stuff).
http://nailsandcoffins.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/anthony-watts-misleading-his-readers.html now this Debs is a giggle issue
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/historic-march-heat-wave-tallies-more-records/ aren't we supposed to be in an ice age
Deb set the tone withher opening gambit "I have to giggle at the graph that shows the lack of correlation between C02 levels and temp". Deb, only read on if you have got over your giggling about those pesky periods when the temperature graph intermittently not ever rising like the CO2 one with the wiggles. Not funny for the victims, but they were periods dominated by La Ninas as you well know. Then again it is not unusual to make jokes about what you dont understand.